Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Morality in euthanasia
Ethical view on euthanasia
Morality in euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morality in euthanasia
In today’s modern era, Euthanasia is a contentious subject, not only because there are various types of moral predicaments about it, but also what comprises its definitions. Euthanasia, which in Greek means ‘easy death’ or ‘die well’, is the process of painlessly helping a terminally ill person to die. This is also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing. When questions arises about the ethical aspects of Euthanasia, living will and hospice care play an essential role in clarifying these questions as well as explanations. A living will is a legal document which allows an individual to make the decisions of whether life-prolonging medical or surgical procedure are to be continued, withheld, or withdrawn, as well as when artificial feeding and fluids are to be used or withheld. It enables one to express his or her wishes. Hospice is a program which provides comfort and supportive care for terminally ill patients and their families. There are many misconceptions about hospice and what they do.
In the article from The Washington Post, “Back Off! I’m Not Dead; I Don’t Want a Living Will. Why Shouldn’t I?” Charlotte Allen discusses a living will as depicting death by giving consent to Euthanasia. She related this statement with a personal experience for a routine mammogram check up which revealed that she had an early-stage breast cancer. Allen had to make hospital visits for treatment. Before a procedure, the receptionists would ask her if she had a living will. She also recalled her experience visiting her 93-year-old father dying of prostate cancer. Later on that day, a friend of the family called and informed her that her dad will eventually be comatose so she should think about putting him into hospice where he will be placed on morphine.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
Once I explained exactly what a living will is because some were unaware they were very comfortable with the idea of filling out a living will. The responses that I got all varied to different degrees. My brother stated that he did not yet have a living will but that they are very important to have and everyone should get one. He said that his wishes would be to pretty much “pull the plug in every circumstance”. He absolutely did not want to be put on life support, be artificially supplied with food, or get life sustaining drugs, machines, or other medical procedures. My mother had wishes the same as I would have which is to consider the circumstances and give me a month to evaluate if I have the possibility of making a full recovery. If there is no hope of having a full recovery then I want all life sustaining measures to be stopped because I don’t in any way want to be a burden on
The boundaries of right to die with dignity are hard to determine. Keeping the terminal patient comfortable is the purpose of comfort care, however there could be a very thin line between what we consider terminal sedation and euthanasia. In theory, comfort care is quite different from euthanasia. Keeping the patient comfortable and letting the nature take its course is at the core of comfort measures (Gamliel, 2012). Yet, the line between keeping comfortable and facilitating death is often blurry. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering (Gamliel, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ethical issue of keeping comfortable vs. hastening death, and the ethical principles involved. Facilitating or hastening death is considered unethical or even illegal.
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a topic, which proponents often support by the affirmation of patient free will or as the exercise of patient autonomy. The purpose of this paper is to examine this argument further from an inter-disciplinary approach, regarding PAS from medical, ethical and legal standpoints and to examine the concept of free will from the philosophical discipline. Are these concepts compatible in a meaningful context and can a sound argument be constructed to support PAS on the basis of patient free will?
However, the framework in practice is very complex, and has various inconsistencies, such as the legality of refusing treatment, the sovereignty of a living will and the issue of prosecuting those who assist someone to end their lives. There is evidence that shows doctors using palliative sedation as a means to facilitate death in patients that are in extreme pain and the use of limiting or even stopping treatment at the patient’s request is not uncommon. The difficulties of putting the law into practice make it extremely difficult for courts, legislators and doctors to reach clear decisions on individual cases. Therefore, the inconsistencies in the legal framework need to be addressed, as with these present the argument against legalising the right to die is weakened. Legalising assisted dying would simplify the framework and ensure that set barriers and safeguards could be created in order to protect the patient and his/her
One Work Cited This essay will present the views of that worldwide organization named Hospice which has seen the quiet, natural death of millions of terminally ill patients - without the use of physician-assisted suicide. It is important that the voice of the largest caregiver for the terminally ill be heard, and listened to attentively. For they have the most experience. The Hemlock Society is nothing (in scope, importance, goals)in comparison to this great Hospice Organization (HO).
I am writing my paper to a group of middle class college students. Majority of who are African American, and a teacher of Asian descent. My class is made up of about twenty student’s ages ranging from 18-33. The majority are females, and only 4 males. Most of the students in my class are from inner city Baltimore, and a couple are out of state. Also, majority of my class are working-class, not many are just students. In addition, we also have students that are also parents.
In What Dying People Want, Kuhl comments, "Dying involves choice"(xviii). People choose what they wear, what they do, and what they will eat on a day to day basis. Choosing how, when, or why sick people die is just like an everyday decision for them. This however, has not been accomplished by some individuals in this Country. Americans have the right of choice. When a patient communicates the desire to die, the inspection of acceptability for palliative care begins instantly. Inspections include evaluation of pain management, depression, anxiety, family burnout, spirituality and other observed issues (Baird and Rosenbaum 100). When working or living with an elder, never ignore the words "I want to die". If this is ignored, that person will not receive their wishes they deserve. Countries are starting to understand that people should be able to die if they choose, "In the United States there are assisted dying laws restricted to terminally ill and mentally competent adults" (Firth). The assisted dying law is only in Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, and California. That is five states out of fifty states. This must be expanded to all fifty states because all individuals have the right of this law. In 2013, Vermont passed an "End of Life Choices" bill. This bill allows terminally ill people to get
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
The purpose of this essay is to analyse various theories on ageing, death, dying, and end of life issues from different perspectives such as: biophysiological theories, psychosocial theories; and taking in consideration the cultural, historical, and religious implications around the aforementioned life stages. One will also discuss important issues relevant to social work practice such as dignity, autonomy, and their relationship with the concept of a successful ageing and a good death. One considers these areas important since they upheld anti-discriminatory practice and may perhaps promote the development of personalised care pathways, as well as fair and justifiable social policies.
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.